FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK INC.
v ESPIRITU NLRC: reversed the LA decision given that the services rendered by Espiritu were
December 3, 2014 / LEONEN, J. / Digest by Chimi
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
PETITIONER Fuji Television Network, Inc.
RESPONDENT Arlene S. Espiritu
SUMMARY. Espiritu was hired by Fuji as a news correspondent and producer. She had lung
cancer thus Fuji decided to not renew her contract. Fuji prepared a non-renewal contract
with a term of one year. Espiritu signed the same under protest. She then filed a case for
illegal dismissal with the NLRC. LA dismissed the complaint as it viewed Espiritu as an
independent contractor. The NLRC reversed the LA decision. The CA affirmed NLRC
decision.
The SC held that Espiritu was an employee of Fuji TV and not an independent contractor
since it exercised control over Espiritus work which was deemed to be necessary and
desirable for the business of Fuji. Her employment is regular with a fixed term given the
nature of her contract which was yearly renewed for a fixed period. Lastly, there was illegal
dismissal as she was terminated from her work due to health conditions without the
certification of a competent public health authority that her disease could not be cured
within six months despite medical treatment.
DOCTRINE. The SC held that in deciding illegal dismissal case, it is bound to look at the
existence of an ER-EE relationship between the parties, and the nature of the employment of
the putative employee. Only then can it answer the question whether or not there was illegal
dismissal. For one, there is illegal dismissal in case an employee was terminated from work
without the required certification from a competent public health under Rule VI, Rule 1,
Section 8 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code cf. Art. 284 of the Labor Code.
FACTS.
Respondent Espiritu was hired in 2005 by petitioner Fuji TV as a news
correspondent/producer who was assigned to produce PH news to Fuji via its field office in
Manila.
The contract was initially for one year, but it was renewed on a yearly basis including
salary increase.
In 2009, Espiritu was diagnosed with lung cancer. She told this to Fuji TV which expressed
that it will no longer renew its contract with her. She was shocked and hurt by the
reaction of Fuji.
They entered into a non-renewal contract despite the protestations of Espiritu who
claimed that she was still fit to work. The contract also included the payment of her mid-
and year-end bonuses as well as separation pay. Espiritu claimed that she signed the
contract because she was left with no recourse as she needed funds for her medication.
After signing the contract, Espiritu filed a case for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
LA: dismissed complaint. Following Sonza v. ABS-CBN, Espiritu is considered an
independent contractor, and not an employee of Fuji.
necessary and desirable to Fuji.
CA: affirmed the NLRC decision. Sonza v. ABS-CBN is not applicable since she was not
contracted on account of any skill or special talent. Also, Espiritu used Fujis equipment
(e.g., laptop, mini-camera) in her work.
Petitioner:
o Espiritu was a mere stringer.
o She was also an independent contractor and Fuji did not have control over
her work. Espiritu signed the non-renewal contract out of her own
freewill. Thus, there could be no illegal dismissal to speak of.
o Further, the award of damages in favor of Espiritu is incorrect because
Espiritu acted in bad faith when she filed a case with Fuji which gave her
entire salary and proper separation pay.
Respondent:
o She was an employee of Fuji TV since her work is necessary and desirable
to the company, Fuji owns the laptop and mini-camera she uses at work,
and that she was given separation pay.
o She was distressed by the decision of Fuji to drop her services despite her
condition, warranting the award for damages.
o She claimed that she was fit to work given the certification of her
physician.
o On the procedural aspect of the case, she also said that the petition for
review must not lie since the signatory of the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping did not have the authority to do so.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed because the signatory of
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition had no
authority to sign the same NO.
The SC held that there was substantial compliance by Fuji TV in this regard.
The physical act of signing the verification and certification against forum
shopping can only be done by natural persons duly authorized by the corporate by
laws of a board resolution.
Board resolution dated 13 May 2010 authorized Mr. Shuji Yano and Mr. Jin Eto to
represent the corporation in all stages of the case. Mr. Yano executed a special
power of attorney and appointed the signatory, Corazon Acerden, as his attorney-
in-fact. Thus, the assailed signatory had in fact the authority to sign the said
documents. Substitute of an agent is valid under Art. 1892 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether or not CA correctly held that there was no GAD committed by NLRC in
holding that there exists an ER-EE relationship between the parties YES.
The SC stated that in cases of illegal dismissal:
o It often used the four-fold test in determining the existence of an ER-EE
relationship, with the control test component being the most important.
o After establishing such relationship, the status of employment is
determined (i.e., whether the employee is a regular employee).
 o Thereafter, illegal dismissal is determined based on existence of just
cause and due process.
The SC held that Fuji had control over the work of Espiritu as she was required to
work for eight (8) hours although on flexible time. The mode of transportation in
doing her field work was even supervised by Fuji. Lastly, Espiritus work is
necessary and desirable in the usual business of Fuji TV, thus the existence of an
ER-EE relationship between the parties.
The SC held that the Sonza vs. ABS-CBN is inapplicable since Espiritu was not
hired because of her unique skills, although she was paid higher than other
employees of Fuji. The SC reiterated that the amount of salary or wage is not an
indicator of ones being an independent contract.
The SC held that Espiritu is a regular employee with a fixed term contract.
Thus, since Espiritu was held to be a regular employee, she was said to be entitled
to the right to security of tenure under Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987
Constitution.
Fuji TV dismissed Espiritu due to her health condition despite the absence of a
certification by a competent public authority that her disease could not be
cured within six (6) months despite medical treatment (Rule VI, Rule 1, Section 8
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code cf. Art. 284 of the Labor
Code).
Espiritu was also not afforded due process or the chance to present medical
certificates. She was not even given the opportunity to take a sick leave.
Therefore, there was illegal dismissal by Fuji.

DECISION.
Petition for certiorari denied. CA decision affirmed (but legal interest was changed in light of
the Nacar Gallery Frames ruling). .